Opinion
Record No. 1132-93-4
Decided: October 4, 1994
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, Gerald Bruce Lee, Judge
Affirmed.
Bruce Henry, pro se.
Marla Lynn Graff, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Fitzpatrick and Senior Judge Duff
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Bruce D. Henry (appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of displaying an improper vehicle registration and an expired state inspection on his vehicle in violation of Code Sections 46.2-613 and 46.2-1158. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt. We disagree and affirm the convictions.
BACKGROUND
On October 1, 1992, appellant received traffic citations for displaying an improper vehicle registration and for having an expired state inspection. Virginia State Trooper Ingram saw appellant go through a traffic signal while driving a 1973 Pontiac. A Division of Motor Vehicles check revealed that the license plate on the Pontiac was registered under appellant's name to a 1976 Chrysler. At trial, appellant admitted that the plate was his, but denied any knowledge of how it was placed on the Pontiac. In addition, the inspection sticker displayed on the Pontiac expired in September, 1992. Appellant argued that he was unaware of the expired inspection.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury is . . . not [to] be set aside unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.
Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987) (citing Code Sec. 8.01-680).
Appellant was found guilty of violating Code Sec. 46.2-613(1) (iii), which prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle on a highway unless the vehicle displays license plates and decals assigned to it. The evidence proved that the vehicle was operated with plates that were assigned to another vehicle owned by appellant. Relying on his uncontradicted testimony that he had no knowledge of this violation, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him. Knowledge, however, is not an element of the offense. See Code Sec. 46.2-613(1) (iii). Moreover, even though "[appellant's testimony regarding his lack of knowledge] was uncontradicted and unimpeached, the trier of fact did not have to accept this version of the facts simply because it was the only version supplied." Harrell v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 1, 9, 396 S.E.2d 680, 684 (1990) (citing Crumble v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 231, 236, 343 S.E.2d 359, 362 (1986)).
Appellant was also found guilty of violating Code Sec. 46.2-1158, which requires motor vehicles to be reinspected within twelve months of their first inspection and at least once every twelve months thereafter. The inspection sticker on appellant's vehicle expired the day before he received the citation. The trial court found evidence offered by appellant of two inspections, on August 22, 1992, and October 1, 1992, irrelevant, as one was not definitely tied to this automobile and the other was after the due date. Furthermore, appellant was uncertain whether the Pontiac he was driving had been inspected. The decision to accept the Commonwealth's evidence rather than appellant's was within the trial judge's discretion. "The weight which should be given to evidence and whether the testimony of a witness is credible are questions which the fact finder must decide." Bridgeman v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1986).
Because we cannot say that the trial judge was plainly wrong, we affirm the convictions.
Affirmed.